The truth is Clinton took over the presidency on Friday when Obama just walked away. Leadership is about symbols. Mommy — Michelle Obama — called and Obama had to go home. He let Clinton take over and clean up the mess. I am wondering if the guy finishes his term. He will not be elected to a second term. Being president sucks right now. It will get worse. His programs are a failure. His party does not like him. So he sent Biden to talk to the party and Clinton to talk to the press. At this point, it is merely symbolic of a resignation. A bad weekend. But it certainly is not something I have seen before in presidential politics.None of this surprises us, and is reflective of all we see around - what Rush Limbaugh calls the "chickafication" of America. Symbolism matters? Look at the symbolism as we've seen it online:
We found this animation from clicking a link on Professor Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit. Reynolds (as far as we know) isn't the person known for passionately fighting for working class men in this country - his wife, Dr. Helen, is. Reynolds merely comments on the topic passively. He's nobody's "working class hero". Christina Hoff Sommers is more forceful than Glenn Reynolds in this regard. Glenn Reynolds is known for banishing men who criticize his style and giving prominent placement to the opinion of hookers at Frisky. Who this helps, other than prostitutes, we don't know.
Glenn Reynolds is also known for sucking up to Ann Althouse, a feminist who has paraded her "two husbands" before us, a situation no "real man" could stand to be in. It has been said, by us and others, that Glenn Reynolds gives more and better placement to Ann Althouse than she deserves. You want symbolism? She's somebody's online "Mommy" just as we can see Michelle (who Ann Althouse loves, and promotes as beautiful, though no one but she and the press can see it) is "Mommy" to Barack Obama. Ann Althouse voted for, and promoted, Barack Obama - a weak man. Ann Althouse likes weak men. She likes men weak. Momma's boys. Men who worship women - not men she can worship. Her symbolism is pungent. Glenn Reynolds thinks it's cool.
This blog has gotten in trouble with, both, Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse for our criticism. We don't understand either one or what they think they're doing. This is a blog written by a man that a group of women knew they had to take down because he was not controllable when it came to their plans. They too, like Ann Althouse, were interested in parading around more than one man per woman - and killing people - and we weren't going to be a party to it. That's not the usual, frivolous, reason people start blogs but it's ours. We're not here to exchange cake recipes, or tell you about our snorkeling trips - we're here to change the world. Now, almost alone, we criticize the excesses of women - like Oprah's role in the killing of others - and get little help from Glenn Reynolds or Ann Althouse or anyone else against Oprah's huge media phenomena with a long list of this kind of thing behind her. This is not a subject we all share an interest in, though we can't imagine why - the dead have families - a topic Ann Althouse seems to have a hard time grasping, as she proved after Elizabeth Edwards died. Other than the Tea Party (again: mostly led by women) it's not a subject these well-to-do online lawyers care about as much as providing information on breadmakers, or science fiction novels, or talking about "shopping" (Glenn Reynolds) and whether or not someone can sleep with their kids and not get in trouble, or kicking the dead carcass of Elizabeth Edwards (Ann Althouse). Symbolism? As media figures, these two strike working class men as just plain weird. What is there to say about lawyers - lawyers - who are more concerned with who won American idol than who Oprah Winfrey had a hand in killing?
Yesterday, we found a Kathleen Parker column that was promoted with the line, "we are at the mercy of giddy, power-hungry nerds operating beyond the burden of responsibility or accountability." It was about WikiLeaks, but we thought it was about the promoted values of Reynolds, Althouse, and the rest of their online clique.
This blog mostly gets dissed by people concerned with looking good in the eyes of women than doing what's right by men. We stand against NewAge beliefs and quackery and get attacked. We're constantly reminding others the blog's title is The Macho Response and not "Women's Wear Daily" or something. We criticize because our country is failing under the current mindset and people are getting killed for no good reason and doing what's right by our country and the dead is part of our role as men. Criticism is how men sort out what's-what and who's-who. It's something women hate - which is why they spend so much time trying to change us - and, to a huge extent, they've succeeded. These new men are nothing like our fathers - even Professor Victor Davis Hanson has remarked they have no bass in their voices. They're girly-men.
But do these girly-men, and their supporters, also think like women? Do they seriously think, like many women today, they're above criticism? Do they think, if they don't engage with it - to avoid the charge to "be a man" - they're somehow fulfilling a man's more important mandate of being fair? Women, generally, are not fair and don't try to be - look at the "no-fault" divorce laws they've erected and hide behind without criticism - or just ask Dr. Helen, who has admitted men today have good reasons not to marry. (We have damn good reasons not to remarry, too.) Like with Oprah killing people, we don't see Ann Althouse or Glenn Reynolds - or any of the other massive numbers of lawyers in their clique - using their influence to tear that fascist "no-fault" enterprise down. Or any of the other barriers in front of men who aren't well-to-do like them. Or to stop the killings going on in NewAge. They just don't care.
Symbolically or otherwise.